Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 29.4.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 13467 of 2009) filed by the appellant challenging the order of termination of agreement dated 4.3.2008, has been dismissed. The appellant challenged the order of termination of agreement dated 4.3.2008 on the ground that neither any show cause notice, as required under Clause 29B of the said agreement, had been issued to the appellant nor he committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the said agreement. It is the case of the appellant that after issuance of the show cause notice for termination of the agreement dated 7.3.2005, a fresh agreement dated 4.3.2008 was executed between the parties and by the said agreement the appellant -dealer and the respondent -Corporation had voluntarily agreed to continue the dealership for another five years on the same terms and conditions. It is further the case of the appellant that after execution of the new agreement, the same could not be terminated by the respondent -Corporation on the basis of the show cause notice issued in the earlier agreement, and that too, without there being any breach of the terms and conditions of the new agreement. According to the appellant, the termination of the agreement dated 4.3.2008 is totally null and void being in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to maintain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge such an order.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground of its maintainability. It was held that after issuance of the show cause notice for termination of the earlier agreement, the appellant had made the prayer for appointment of an Arbitrator under the arbitration clause of the said agreement. On the application of the appellant, a sole Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. In those arbitration proceedings, the appellant filed additional claim with regard to termination of his dealership vide application dated 27.7.2008. Prior to that, the respondent -Corporation requested the Arbitrator vide letter dated 9.7.2008 for enlargement of the scope of arbitration to adjudicate disputes and differences arising out of termination of agreement dated 4.3.2008. Thus, the scope of the arbitration proceeding was enhanced and both the parties were given ample opportunity to lead evidence in support of their claim. On the said letter filed by the respondent -Corporation, the issue of termination of agreement dated 4.3.2008 was also to be gone into. Finally, the Arbitrator after considering the claim of both the parties and the evidence led by them, had passed the Award dated 18.11.2008 while holding that the termination of dealership agreement dated 4.3.2008 carried out by the respondent -Corporation vide letter dated 1.7.2008 is proper, valid and legal. The claim of the appellant seeking restoration of the dealership was accordingly rejected. The claim of the respondents for shortage/imbalance of 177 cylinders and 322 regulators was granted and the appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 21,84,245/ - to the respondent -Corporation as per the calculation given in the Award. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition while taking into consideration the fact that already the arbitration proceedings have been culminated in the arbitration Award and if the appellant has any grievance against the said Award, he has the remedy under the Arbitration Act. However, instead of choosing that remedy he had filed the writ petition challenging the very termination order which was subject matter of adjudication before the Arbitrator. In view of these facts, it has been held that the writ petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable. It has been further found by the learned Single Judge that in the writ petition many disputed questions of facts had been raised which also could not have been gone into in writ jurisdiction. It has been held that having himself voluntarily invoked the remedy of arbitration and after getting an unfavourable decision from the Arbitrator, the appellant could not be permitted to raise the issue in the writ jurisdiction. The appellant has challenged the said order in the present appeal.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.;